David HaithHow refreshing for somebody to post something here which relates to the problem of reality.Of course the interviewer Robert Lawrence Kuhn has the atheist label which I guess gives him the necessary qualification for appearing on this site.But at least he’s a less dogmatic atheist than some and allows himself to consider for instance the problem of consciousness, whether it is fundamental to all that is – a theory I lean towards – or merely a function of the brain and possibly even a total illusion.Here’s one of his interviews from his Closer to Truth series in which he dares to raise this very issue – one I would be hesitant to even discuss here for fear of ridicule.

In it he interviews various thinkers and philosophers including Daniel Dennett and Susan Blackmore whose views you will all be familiar with but he includes other folk like David Chalmers who seems to suggest we are not biological robots.And even Robert himself concludes “I sense consciousness may reflect a deeper reality”

Chris StreetIn http://www.facebook.com/l.php... Susan Blackmore is interviewed saying that their is no room for a soul or self - science has given better explanations for all of the jobs that the soul / self used to have. Susan says there is nothing non-material, 'nothing in another dimension or waffly little spirits'. 'Are brain and the mind one and the same thing?', Robert Lawrence Kuhn asks rhetorically.

In the 15 minute http://www.closertotruth.com/.../How-Are-Brains.../1102 Blackmore says she thinks we need a monism non-dual understanding of the world. She says 'There is no special thing called consciousness.' Consciousness is an illusion (something that is not what it appears to be).

In http://www.closertotruth.com/.../How-Are-Brains.../1103 Blackmore asks are we conscious ONLY when we ask the question are we conscious now? Existence of consciousness is NOT a good proof of God, as Kuhn seems to be arguing. Consciousness may become to be understood in the same way that the 'elan vital' or the 'ether' is now understood, says Susan Blackmore. Invoking God does not help in the least at resolving the current mystery of consciousness, she says.

More of Dan Dennett talking about Consciousness herehttp://www.closertotruth.com/.../Why-is.../1338 - Dennett says 'Consciousness is playing tricks with us. [..] The brain is only taking in sips of the firehose of information from our sight and auditory senses. [..] All this competition resolves in reflection and behaviour. [..] 'Coming to consciousness' is an illusion.'

"So, after all this, what do I think? Does God make sense? To me, honestly, nothing makes sense!God? No God? Both hit circularities, regresses, dead-ends.Arguments? I love them all, but in the end, they all falter. Theistic arguments, atheistic arguments—none are dispositive. I’ve (half) joked that if I had to chose, I’d have to say that I find the atheistic arguments more palatable to swallow but the theistic conclusion more satisfying to digest. That doesn’t make sense, of course. And I guess that is my point. It’s not scientifically becoming to admit belief without reason. But to me, honesty trumps image."

So technically I guess he's agnostic.

Your other points:"Humanists believe THIS is the only life we have, because there is NO reliable EVIDENCE of previous lives."

I guess it's a waste of time quoting the acres of evidence suggestive of reincarnation researched by people like Ian Stevenson not to mention the many volumes many written by reputable scientists dealing with mediumship, death bed visions, NDEs - literally now in their millions - etc etc.

But it is interesting to hear you say what humanists 'believe'. When I did that survey the other day I came out 80 per cent humanist. So what right have you got telling others what I believe? Humanism I'm afraid is looking more like a cult if it now has a creed and belief system which you make pronouncements about.

The other links you posted re Blackmore and Dennett merely repeated the points I made in my original posting of the video.

That particular Kuhn video gave, was it four or five, talking heads and their views on consciousness.

At least two - maybe three because I couldn't quite fathom the Buddhist - put forward a non-materialist view on consciousness.

What irks me about Humanists and this site in particular is that the alternative view - no matter how scientific - never gets a look in here - except through me.

Now how is that balanced or fair? Any stranger viewing your stuff wouldn't know there were other world views, other theories and evidence.

Why do I know that you would NEVER post a link giving the views of David Chalmers a philosopher at the Australian National University and New York University, a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and director of the Centre for Consciousness at ANU, and Professor of Philosophy and co-director of the Center for Mind, Brain, and Consciousness at NYU....and one of the people interviewed in that video? Why am I not surprised that you DID post links about Blackmore and Dennett who were also in the video?

The answer of course is that Chalmers doesn't exactly parrot the Humanist 'belief system' - the one you quoted above and it wouldn't do, would it, to consider another view.

Well you and my other buddies in argument on this site will no doubt be overjoyed to know that for the second time I'm outta here. I only returned to post an event which members found useful - but as always I got dragged in with the same tired old pseudo-sceptical responses.

May I wish you all the compliments of the season.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" Einstein

Chris StreetTo quote Dorset Humanists Partners the BHA "Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence, and reason to discover truths about the universe and have placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making.

Chris StreetDavid Chalmers .... I didn't get to him, .. coming laterhttp://www.closertotruth.com/.../Why-Is-Consciousness.../289. Kuhn says' If Daniel Dennett is right and consciousness is an illusion all of me is in my head, just my brain in my cranium; if it goes, I go. I hoped for more. I'm a little depressed'. David Chalmers says 'consciousness may not be irreducible and not explainable by the brain alone. Consciousness is the hard problem (why is all that processing accompanied by conscious experience, why does it feel like something on the inside) cf. the easy problem can be explained in terms of circuits in my brain'. Chalmers says 'is consciousness a second element of reality that somehow emerges from the brain, that's an open question at least'. More from David Chalmers:http://www.closertotruth.com/.../Are-there-Things.../1177

David HaithWell, well, well! After my challenge that he'd never post anything from Chalmers, Chris did just that!

But would you have done it Chris unless I'd said you never would? -:)

Now I get a little Facebook note saying you've joined a Facebook Group called The Consciousness Project which has the below blurb:

"What is consciousness?

Philosophers since the time of Descartes and Locke have struggled to comprehend the nature of consciousness and pin down its essential properties. It is merely a product of the brain or a fundamental property of the universe that influences reality and does it survive death? At one time consciousness was viewed with skepticism by many scientists, but in recent years it has become a significant topic of research in psychology and neuroscience. It's implications in quantum physics and the near death experience hint at a truth that is bigger and more exciting than we ever dreamt possible.

This group takes a closer look at the latest research and data. Join us as we go deeper down the rabbit hole. "

So will I have to eat my words when I say Chris refuses to look at alternative views on consciousness?

I suppose he may have only joined that group to poke fun at it but maybe miracles - non supernatural ones of course - do happen.

I have just discovered that there was a recent metasurvey of philosophers asking many questions including one about mind.

The PhilPapers Metasurvey was taken by 727 respondents including 438 professional philosophers and PhDs and 210 philosophy graduate students.

It revealed that 27.1% of philosophers accepted or lean towards mind as being non-physical, while 16.4% chose “other” than physical or nonphysical.) The rest - 56.5% accepted mind as totally physical.

Quite a large percentage Chris for the non-reductionist camp, so surely worth Humanists being a little more flexible about such topics of survival after death etc. After all if mind is non-physical - it might survive death as NDE's suggest.,

Dr Stuart Hameroff, Professor Emeritus at the Departments of Anesthesiology and Psychology and the Director of the Centre of Consciousness Studies at the University of Arizona, has advanced the quasi-religious theory.

It is based on a quantum theory of consciousness he and British physicist Sir Roger Penrose have developed which holds that the essence of our soul is contained inside structures called microtubules within brain cells.

They have argued that our experience of consciousness is the result of quantum gravity effects in these microtubules, a theory which they dubbed orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR).

"Chalmers’s hard problem has become something of a Holy Grail for consciousness studies. Scientists and philosophers are falling over each other to become the one who solves the hard problem. The trouble is, no one knows how to set about solving it, or even what to look for.

At one extreme are those who think we need a revolution in physics to solve it, such as the flamboyant Tucson anaesthesiologist, Stuart Hameroff. “Every day” he told me “I put patients to sleep and wake them up and it’s still incredible. You wonder - where do they go?”. He has teamed up with the British mathematician, Sir Roger Penrose, to argue that the brain is a quantum computer and the conscious self depends on quantum effects in the microtubules – tiny tubular structures inside every cell of our bodies. They are convinced that this is the way forward, but no one else I talked to shared their enthusiasm."

(I'm currently doing an MSc at OU in Medicinal Chemistry - which allows access to all OU Library resources)

By checking the 'Web of Science' database I found that above Hameroff & Pensrose 1996 paper had been cited 48 times. Thus I found this paper in 2009 by McKemmish et al which concludes "the Orch OR model is not a feasible explanation of the origin of consciousness." You can download it:https://www.facebook.com/groups/dorsethumanists/10152430291578943/

Andrew BindonChris Street ...no I don't think you have missed anything, although possibly some of these matters have bearings on each other. Dreyfus is a Heideggerian more than anything, although sometimes he is also a non-realist polytheist, although he is a realist about things like galaxies, and he thinks that Heidegger is too. I'm not sure whether realism matters very much, but I do think that Heidegger is a thinker who deserves more attention than most scientistic types give him.

Chris StreetDavid Haith said "Well, well, well! After my challenge that he'd never post anything from Chalmers, Chris did just that! But would you have done it Chris unless I'd said you never would? -:)"

David Haith "I have just discovered that there was a recent metasurvey of philosophers asking many questions including one about mind. The PhilPapers Metasurvey was taken by 727 respondents including 438 professional philosophers and PhDs and 210 philosophy graduate students. It revealed that 27.1% of philosophers accepted or lean towards mind as being non-physical, while 16.4% chose “other” than physical or nonphysical.) The rest - 56.5% accepted mind as totally physical. Quite a large percentage Chris for the non-reductionist camp, so surely worth Humanists being a little more flexible about such topics of survival after death etc. After all if mind is non-physical - it might survive death as NDE's suggest.,"

Until I find reliable evidence for non-physicalism, FWIW, I'm with the majority 56.5% who are physicalists. I wonder what the % would have been if they had asked scientists eg neuroscientists, instead of philosophers?

I don't agree with your view that just because 27% of philosophers are mind non-physicalists that therefore a similar number would accept NDE. Also the survey does not define what is meant by physicalism eg see the multiple definitions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

I reject non-physical interpretations of NDE in favour of physical / chemical explanations of neuronal processes in the brain.

selected other questions of interest to me FWIW: 8. God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.FWIW I would have voted atheism15. Metaphilosophy: naturalism 49.8%; non-naturalism 25.9%; other 24.3%.FWIW I would have voted naturalism

David HaithChris,I see you've posted the McKemmish argument against the Hammeroff/Penrose theory - fair enough.And I'm encouraged that you did post the Hammeroff material on this group in the first place.Your medical studies for sure mean you understand the complexities of these theories and counter theories more than I do.Of course my interest in all theories of non-local consciousness is because as you know, my main interest is the paranormal, having experienced examples. So I have a fuller appreciation of that area than yourself or others here who because the very strong sceptical movement's hold on Humanism, deters genuine investigation.As I've said many times before there is nothing supernatural - just the unexplored and defined 'natural'.

McGinn tells Robert Lawrence Kuhn (in the last minutes of the video) that the empirical sciences can't currently explain consciousness but that does not mean that science won't explain consciousness sometime in the (distant?) future.

Andrew BindonThe thing I like about what David Haith said is that it does seem to me that our job as thinkers is to move ourselves away from our islands of certainty and out into the unchartered waters of what is unknown or unknowable. If I am thinking about something that is certain, I do think we need to stop to ask ourselves why we bother, and go out and look for something that isn't. One thing that I am as certain about as any thought I utter is that we find ourselves in the middle of a unfathomable mystery.

David HaithWhen I've posed just that same question here before Andrew, the answer has been something along the lines of 'We don't want to risk wasting time on stuff that mostly will turn out to be rubbish. As far as science is concerned we focus only on that which has been proved by peer reviewed studies'My answer to that is that even those peer reviewed studies had to begin with speculation or theory in somebody's imagination.And if they had only focused on the known and the certain - science wouldn't have progressed at all!Not that I am in any position to further the progress of science with speculative concepts - but I can at least encourage others who can think out of the box and turn their thinking into action.